Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

The humidity thing is hilarious. It's got maybe 2-3 weeks of solid humidity with heat, the rest is completely normal and tolerable. I've been in TO for about a year and a half now and am still waiting for this oppressive humidity to kick in.

Even when it's humid and hot, it's nowhere near what you get in places like Thailand or Singapore. That's real humid heat.

She lived in Ontario for over 10 years before she moved to Alberta. The dry heat and the ability to open your doors and windows at night to cool the house down is what she likes about our climate. She had air conditioning installed but hasn't used it very much.

[Superflyer]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

You have to be pretty dumb if you think these poll numbers will translate closer to the election. Scheer had polling numbers like this too. What happened there?

Pierre is too rightwing deplorable for GTA. but you already knew that.

I find anyone cheering poll results right now to be like leaf fans planning the parade the day they clinch a playoff berth.

[Yoho]

Originally Posted by Superflyer

I find anyone cheering poll results right now to be like leaf fans planning the parade the day they clinch a playoff berth.

Def looking good for the Libs. I’m sure you would be ignoring if it was reversed.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Yoho

Or they are coming for the as advertised home cooking.

Highly doubtful people move 4000km because they have rave reviews of the party policies and place they left.

This might shock you, but for most people "politics" isn't some all consuming part of their identity.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Yoho keeps saying people from Ontario 'flee' here to escape their crazy left wing politics, completely ignoring not only his own sources, but also the fact that Ontario has had a Conservative Government for over 5 years

It's a really sad/pathetic form of US right wing worship. They just copy and paste the same crap that is said about California or NY and Florida and try apply it to Ontario and Alberta.

We basically just have a bunch people cosplaying as ultra-conservative Americans. Icky.

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Let's get that electricity hike replay, but this time with red line visuals!

https://twitter.com/user/status/1691926859762811274

You can literally see when deregulation happened. That line isn't going down with Danielle Smith's suspension of renewables from Alberta. Energy execs loving the UCP investment ROI.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

You can literally see when deregulation happened. That line isn't going down with Danielle Smith's suspension of renewables from Alberta. Energy execs loving the UCP investment ROI.

The chart only goes back to 2010 and deregulation happened in 1996?

[FlameOn]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

The chart only goes back to 2010 and deregulation happened in 1996?

I meant the recent removal of the electricity rate price cap by the UCP.

[Fuzz]

The "rate cap" that expired just after the election, and wasn't a cap at all, but a deferral that gets billed to those least able to afford it? I still can't believe people fell for that.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

I meant the recent removal of the electricity rate price cap by the UCP.

Even then that doesn't necessarily appear as some sort of prominent feature. The UCP removed the rate cap in Nov 2019, so just a tiny bit before the 2020 tick. Until around mid 2021, my best guess based on the sparse axis markings, the CPI was overall pretty flat with some volatility up and down. It really took off after that.

[Frequitude]

Great responses. Thanks for taking the time. I’ll try to group the salient points as best I can.

Originally Posted by Major Major

Do these factors support a moratorium or simply the notion that we won't be off gas by 2035? No need to attack our own industry to get this point across. It makes zero sense.

Not particularly fussed, but I can get on board with a short term moratorium while the uncertainty around the CER plays out. It has profound impacts on what firm backup capacity and baseload CCGT/cogens will be able to do, which need to be properly integrated with the right level of renewables.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Frequitude:

I don't think anyone is saying wind and solar are THE solution. What I've been saying is they are PART of it, and bringing on all that capacity will help supply the demand as Alberta grows, while hopefully flattening the price spikes.

That’s just it though. They won’t flatten the price spikes, they’ll exacerbate them. Wind/solar bid zero. So that means there will be even more zero-dollar hours in the future, which means the fewer remaining hours will be the only ones for the clean thermal plants to recover a fair return on their capital. Even at a fair amount of, say 8%, spreading that across fewer hours means higher prices in those hours. Night time and those long week+ windless times that happen will get pretty pricey.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Peaker plants are apparently exempt from the net zero legislation. So they can continue to operate as is. If there's a business case for more peaker plants, the market SHOULD build them. If prices are spiking regularly, I'd think that would happen.

Only if they are 25MW or less. That’s very tiny. Maybe we’ll just end up building hundreds of 24.9MW unabated peaker plants and keep on pumping CO2 into the air!

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

From what I understand, gas power plants commissioned before 2025 are also exempt.
Anything brought on after that has 20 years to comply. Google tells me the lifespan of a gas turbine that operates 24/7 is around 10 years. The math on the useful life of a gas plant is open to interpretation here, but it's a pretty big timeline; 2 decades to figure out CCUS.

Unfortunately no. Plants commissioned before 2025 must be abated by 2035 or 20 years after commissioning, whichever is later. So anything built before 2015 (a lot) need to abate by 2035 (and as an aside the useful life of a plant is much longer that 20 years). Anything brought on after Jan 1, 2025 much comply by 2035. All CER roads are pointing to abating by 2035.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

The feds are also committing 40 billion to the provinces over 10 years to achieve their goal. If Alberta is the "problem emitter" in Canada, it stands to reason the bulk of that money will be here.

IMO the federal legislation is largely toothless, there's a PILE of money that is going to be up for grabs from them (on top of the cash already going into the industry) so it makes no sense whatsoever for Smith to pause renewables and pick a fight with Trudeau here. It only makes sense if her goal is whip up her base, which seems to be what is happening.

The feds have grossly underestimated the cost of CER. Alberta alone will be $100B+, I think Ontario has come out with $300B+, Saskatchewan said $40B+. $40B is pennies on the dollar. The cost as they’ve framed it up now will fall squarely on electricity consumers or tax payers. The UCP was 100% spot on when they attacked CER and the NDP's prior endorsement during the election. Similarly, the NDP didn't really counterattack because they realized their old endorsement was uniformed and incorrect.

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

TL/DR IMO go heavy renewables alongside nuclear and have Ottawa help fund it.

I’m with you in theory, unfortunately nuclear is also a relatively baseload power supply so doesn’t pair well with variable wind/solar. Wind/solar only pairs well at scale with large scale hydro, because you can quickly draw down reservoirs during dark windless times, and can pump the water back up hill during sunny windy times when there’s excess power. That’s the problem with more renewables in this province…we don't have access to large scale hydro. So wind/solar are going to mean more natural gas peakers which are incredibly expensive to abate, which means higher power bills to create enough revenue to incentivize their construction.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I agree that we need thermal to backup renewables. I guess my question is, would this ultimately cost us more? Once installed, solar and wind have low operating costs and produce near free electricity. Would this be enough to offset the cost of backup NG over the life of the plant/solar & wind? I have no idea, but that seems like interesting math.

Unfortunately no. That’s the ironic thing about wind/solar producing “free energy”….they bid zero in the market. So while we will end up with a lot of zero dolar hours, that also leaves much fewer hours for the capitally-intensive-to-build-and-abate firm backup thermal to recover enough money to recover their capital. Squish that desired return into fewer hours and what are you left with…higher prices in those hours. Those clean thermal plants will cost 10's of billions to build. They need to be paid for somehow.

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I also don't really think "we'll do it by 2050 with SMR's" is much of a plan, given no one has proven the economics/success of SMR's at this point. It's wishful thinking pawning off the problem. It also doesn't really make any sense given Alberta's population centres. You should be planing on real reactors, o ryou are just going to need 20 "small" ones in the same spot.

100% agree. If I’m Guillbeault and Alberta comes to me and says “let us off the CER hook and I swear we’ll build nuclear” I respond with “lololololol ya right”. But I do think there’s a genuine path for nuclear deployment in this province backstopped by the oil sands. What do nuclear reactors make first? Steam. Not power. They first make steam that then gets run through turbines. And what does in situ need? Steam. So get the reactors going up there to provide steam as the baseload, then start layering on more with turbines as everything gets built out.

That’s my dream. Huge nuclear, with some wind/solar, and pan-canadian tie lines built to a bunch of new hydro in BC, Manitoba, and Quebec. But good luck getting them to build anymore! New dams aren't exactly in vogue because they displace berries and bunnies, and sometimes people. They also have decent methane emissions.

[Doctorfever]

Great post Frequitude. Thank you for this information. Makes a lot of sense.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It definitely makes a lot of sense that the path to sustainable energy infrastructure would look very different province by province, but that's the first time I've seen someone break it down in lay terms. Thanks.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

-snip-

Unfortunately no. That’s the ironic thing about wind/solar producing “free energy”….they bid zero in the market. So while we will end up with a lot of zero dolar hours, that also leaves much fewer hours for the capitally-intensive-to-build-and-abate firm backup thermal to recover enough money to recover their capital. Squish that desired return into fewer hours and what are you left with…higher prices in those hours. Those clean thermal plants will cost 10's of billions to build. They need to be paid for somehow.
-snip-

So is this more an issue with how our energy market is setup, rather than what could be achieved with wise legislation? Sounds like fixing issues to incentivize using green energy when it is available would make more sense than how it is worknig now. Or is it a fundamental problem that can't be fixed just by tinkering with rules?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

So is this more an issue with how our energy market is setup, rather than what could be achieved with wise legislation? Sounds like fixing issues to incentivize using green energy when it is available would make more sense than how it is worknig now. Or is it a fundamental problem that can't be fixed just by tinkering with rules?

Its a fundamental problem because of the 10's of billions of dollars of capital needed to build the hydrogen fired peakers you need to pair with renewables. Those 10's of billions plus a fair return on capital needs to be paid for somehow, either by rate payers or tax payers.

Even if our market structure changes back to regulated, that doesn't go away. It just gets buried in the bill. Don't forget, regulated doesn't mean "we'll regulate rates so they're cheap and fair for consumers". It means regulated rates of return on capital for project builders.

[Fuzz]

I guess I was more curious if, say in blank slate Alberta, we have 10GW demand, and(for simplicity) we had 10GW of installed gas and 10-15GW of installed wind and solar. We then have capacity covered for full green energy when it is all producing, and gas, for those long winter periods when green energy is not. Imagining a system without carbon taxes or any market manipulation, would the "free" green energy produced in good times cover the added cost of needing to build NG "backup" to cover our full load in bad?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I guess I was more curious if, say in blank slate Alberta, we have 10GW demand, and(for simplicity) we had 10GW of installed gas and 10-15GW of installed wind and solar. We then have capacity covered for full green energy when it is all producing, and gas, for those long winter periods when green energy is not. Imagining a system without carbon taxes or any market manipulation, would the "free" green energy produced in good times cover the added cost of needing to build NG "backup" to cover our full load in bad?

Ah, I think I follow. I think what you're saying is "if I spend all the extra capex on 20-25 GW of combined capacity, is the reduced opex from all the free renewables hours better economics"?

If so, it would definitely need some math but my gut says no. Capex+returns usually drives the day (especially when you add on the expected project overruns and inflation risks if the whole world is trying to build the same thing at the same time).

Honestly, uncalculated common sense would suggest you'd be better off to just build 10 GW of clean gas for that 10 GW of demand, run it all the time, and never bother with the billions of dollars for that 10-15 GW of wind/solar. Know what I mean? And this wouldn't be a scenario with lots of carbon taxes because CER is forcing that gas to be abated. You can't pay to pollute your way out.

It just seems like, in this province, all roads of more wind/solar just lead to more inefficiencies. But I can't blame them for their rapid expansion. The TIER credits just make them pretty damn economic projects.

[Fuzz]

Alberta's health minister says Alberta Health Services has signed a memorandum of understanding with the ownership of Dynalife, which will see the private provider transfer all of its staff, operations and physical locations to the government-owned Alberta Precision Labs by the end of 2023.


"This change is necessary to make sure Albertans can get their lab work done when and where they need it and get timely results," Adriana LaGrange said.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...940595?cmp=rss


Press release:
https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...000CF346F4618F


May this forever stand as an example of how privatizing public services can turn into an unmitigated disaster. I'd love to know what the total bill is to taxpayers from this fiasco. We should recuperate it from the UCP, but instead, voters will just vote for them again. And again. And again.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...940595?cmp=rss


Press release:
https://www.alberta.ca/release.cfm?x...000CF346F4618F

When the hell are we going to hit bottom?

[Ozy_Flame]

Wonder how much this disaster will cost Albertans versus what it would have cost to just consolidate and build the superlab in Edmonton (including cancelling it when they did).

Are Albertans having fun yet with this government?